Keep Rates / T&Cs

DOH!
Just found this split thread - good idea to move it away from Rays wedding thread.. Will get the T&Cs out to those who sent me email addresses ASAP.

M
 
I was reading this thread, trying to work out how the title and OP related to weddings... :p

Makes sense now...

I was going to butt in and mention my keep rate but as I don't shoot people and more for pleasure I'll back out gracefully.;)
 
MarkECP said:
DOH!
Just found this split thread - good idea to move it away from Rays wedding thread.. Will get the T&Cs out to those who sent me email addresses ASAP.

M
Click to expand...

Bit hard to send you my email address without PM or Trust set up :p
Anyway, my email is in trust and sig.
 
I like a copy too if you don't mind, Email in sig.

Though, I would add this as well for people who are interested, just my 2p.

The key to a contract, a VALID contract, is not just make it water tight, but fair. As you can Soooooooooo easily make it too tight and fall foul of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977. Thus the entire clause won't stand up in Court. You also don't want to use to litigious words, keep it simple but concise.

You also want to avoid words such as "BEST" as in "The photographer will use his best endeavours to capture all moments but cannot guarantee any photographs that he has missed". Sounds perfectly normal right? Except, what constitute "Best". Looking at case laws for other cases, and apply it to this. May be BEST means should should have hired an assistant so he doesn't miss anything. May be he should have used the BEST equipment, meaning the Nikon D700 is rubbish as its not the best camera Nikon makes. May be by BEST, meaning he should have gone to a wedding someone else did there a week ago and observe and do his homework.
 
Last edited:
Guys,

Mark wanted to let you know that he hasn't forgotten. But he currently can't get on the forum. He's forgotten his password and the websites 'I've forgotten my password' bit isn't working. Gonna speak to a Don to try and get it sorted :)

Bear with him :)
 
ScarySquirrel said:
It annoys me when people ask for all of the photos, like they don't trust my judgement.

I had someone recently ask for all of the RAW files, I kindly told them to FO (obviously in a more professional manner)
Click to expand...

Why? This really annoys me.

Someone employs you to take some photos, and its usually fair to assume they are paying good money if you are a professional photographer - why can't the customer have all of the RAWs? It makes no odds to you as they've already been taken, and they have paid you to take photos.

I had the same issue at an event a couple of years ago. A professional photographer was hired, paid very good money, who then made money selling prints afterwards. When we received our prints they were absolutely terrible - over sharpened, compression artifacts etc.

So I contacted the photographer and asked her if I could have the RAWs for the photos we had bought and paid for. She told me that wasn't possible, that it was a breach of her copyright and that all her RAWs are sent to a professional 'processing' company to be sorted, so there cannot possibly be anything wrong with the photos I purchased.
 
MikeHiow said:
Why? This really annoys me.

Someone employs you to take some photos, and its usually fair to assume they are paying good money if you are a professional photographer - why can't the customer have all of the RAWs? It makes no odds to you as they've already been taken, and they have paid you to take photos.

I had the same issue at an event a couple of years ago. A professional photographer was hired, paid very good money, who then made money selling prints afterwards. When we received our prints they were absolutely terrible - over sharpened, compression artifacts etc.

So I contacted the photographer and asked her if I could have the RAWs for the photos we had bought and paid for. She told me that wasn't possible, that it was a breach of her copyright and that all her RAWs are sent to a professional 'processing' company to be sorted.
Click to expand...

They can't have all the RAWs because Photographers never gave out Negatives in the old days.

Gordon Ramsey won't let you have raw ingredients, I won't give out Raws either. It is MORE Than copyright. It is about showing your best work, and ONLY your best work.

Although....If you pay me enough, and care to sign a disclosure agreement, I would hand over the RAWs. But the amount would be enough to cover:

1 - Potential loss of print sales
2 - Potential reputation loss in case if it leaks out

And a penalty clause in the agreement for damages should the Raws gets leaked out to a 3rd Party.

Basically, enough to make me worthwhile, and not having to work again, ever.

BTW, you never "bought and paid for" the RAWs. What you paid was what was stated in your contract. I bet you anything that the contract did not say RAW NEGATIVES.

In that case, you never "bought and paid for" those did you? And if you had known this when you signed the contract, why are you complaining after the event?
 
Last edited:
RAWs are very different to negatives; There are just one set of negatives, RAWs can be copied without limit and at no cost.

If a client is asking for RAWs then your best work probably wasn't good enough, otherwise why else would they want them?

Nice analogies, but it works both ways;
I work in web development, I would not expect to pay a designer only for them to produce a JPEG, holding back the PSD - I paid them to do some work, and I expect all of the work.

Why are you so protective over your RAWs? I can't figure out whether photographers don't really know why and it just follows on from your negatives example, or whether photographers just aren't really photographers these days relying on heavy post-processing to cover up mistakes etc.

This is exactly why I'll never employ a professional photographer (unless I can find one without the attitude) and this is the way many people are going. You are paid what is usually silly amounts of money just to attend an event for example and take pictures, but you want these pictures you've been paid to take to remain your own property. Its like me paying a builder to build me a house, only for him to say that I do not own the house after paying him 200k to build it, but he will rent parts of it out to me that he deems good enough.

I don't want to ruffle anyone's feathers, I just simply don't get it.
 
Last edited:
MikeHiow said:
RAWs are very different to negatives; There are just one set of negatives, RAWs can be copied without limit and at no cost.

If a client is asking for RAWs then your best work probably wasn't good enough, otherwise why else would they want them?

Nice analogies, but it works both ways;
I work in web development, I would not expect to pay a designer only for them to produce a JPEG, holding back the PSD - I paid them to do some work, and I expect all of the work.

Why are you so protective over your RAWs? I can't figure out whether photographers don't really know why and it just follows on from your negatives example, or whether photographers just aren't really photographers these days relying on heavy post-processing to cover up mistakes etc.

This is exactly why I'll never employ a professional photographer (unless I can find one without the attitude) and this is the way many people are going. You are paid what is usually silly amounts of money just to attend an event for example and take pictures, but you want these pictures you've been paid to take to remain your own property. Its like me paying a builder to build me a house, only for him to say that I do not own the house after paying him 200k to build it, but he will rent parts of it out to me that he deems good enough.

I don't want to ruffle anyone's feathers, I just simply don't get it.
Click to expand...

Well, there are sooo many reasons, and if you just open your mind a little and step into a photographer's shoe for 5 min then perhaps you will understand.

RAWs can continue to be not copied when it doesn't leave my possession. Its only when the client gets hold of it that happens.

Photography is not just about taking a photo, go take some photos over Christmas and show us, you are not going to post all of them are you, you are only going to post the one you think that is worth while right? Theree are some blatant bad ones, like it went off accidentally right? Same principle.

Now if you are saying only show the client the RAWS that exclude those bad ones. Then where is the line? That's why you hire a professional, to make that judgment.

Photography is also an art, the good photographers have a style, and that style is not complete in RAW, RAW are flat, RAW are just raw, its not about processing to cover up, there is nothing to cover up, you are seeing the picture. What they are doing is adding their personality to it. That's why you hired that guy right? You want his work, his distinctive style. Otherwise you sre hiring just a snapper, not a photographer (shock horror statement).

I will give you another analogy.

Steven Speilberg wont show you his negatives for his movies either, the stuff left on the editing room STAYS in the editing room. As a movie goer you have no ro rights to see those. Why do you care anyway? The movie is good enough, and if the movie is bad, what makes you think the stuff on the editing room floor will make the movie better?


James Cameron won't show Avatar without Special Effects either. Does that mean his Raws isn't good enough? No, his raws are what taken it to the final movie. but he is also saving you the trouble of seeing something isn't fully realized, and something that hasn't full filed it's potential, something that ruins your experience of the final movie.

That is the artistic side. As a photographer, you hire him to deliver the goods, the final product, why do you want to see his work in progress? That's what the RAWs are, it isn't MORE PHOTOS for you to see, they are work in progress.

You use the builder as an example, except you got the wrong end of the stick. It isn't about finishing the house and only rent parts of it out. RAWs by their nature, are unfinished. If I uses you builders as an example. the Raws would be bricks. And you are basically asking for a pile of bricks. So as a client, do you want a house on your land or a pile of bricks? The photographer is letting you have his "house", that's the final image, the jpeg. That's what you paid for. You pay the builder for the house not a pile of bricks.

Now i move onto reputation.

You are only as good as your last job. And in photography, reputation is everything. To be successful you need to be different, or at least stand out, and for that you need to be doing something a client can only get from you, if they can get it from everyone else then there is no reason you hire you, they will hire someone cheaper. Hence the need and the necessity of a style. RAWs have no style. So if you start handing over work without style then why woukd a client hire you? The answer is Money, then the only reason you would get hired is because you are cheap. Thats no good because you don't want to be known as the Cheap Photographer, you want to be known as the Good Photographer. If you are self employed, would you rather do 10 shoots and make a living or do 1000 and make a living?



Now i move onto copyright.

Copyright.

Enough said.
 
Last edited:
I'm with Raymond with this one, and I bet many other photographers are in the same boat as him.


Just to reiterate, the photographer owns the photos of what he's taken (subject to model release form). He can choose to give out the RAWs if he wishes to unless stated in the contract. The photographer adds value to the work he does, whether he gets the shots in the right place and time or whether he adds his style in post processing.

Mike as you say your a web developer, I'm going to assume you work for a company or organisation. If a client comes up to you and ask you to build a website / develop a system. He pays you for the work and then after completion ask for the source code. How would you react? I'm sure in your case you will be reluctant to provide this information over because if there are changes or upgrades needs to be done then your client must come back to yourself. You've developed that website or system from scratch and for you to just simply hand it over and your client ask another web developer to make changes is simply a business model that has failed.

I hope what I've put across makes sense and that providing RAWs are not just a simple case. Photographers have their reasons as web developers not providing their source code.

Raymond - I think you need to get some sleep or more coffee down you. Check what you type out! ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom